The same goes for those who argued that their Primary 3 kids whose birthdays fall on the later part of the year should be given special treatment during the streaming examinations. Why?
(Oh, because it is unfair to place them in the same group as those born in the first 6 months of the year, as these slightly older children will have more time to learn!!!)
*rolls eyes*
For a 4 year-old-child, it is a fair reason since a few months of difference in dates of birth could really mean a big deal. Consider a Jan 2006 vs a Dec 2006 child entering Kindergarten 1 next January.
The child who has 12 months more time to learn to read or acquire social skills may have a slight advantage in the beginning. Notice I say 'may' and not 'will', because it depends on factors such as the availability of learning opportunities and the nurturing environment the child grew up in. So it is also possible for the younger child to have acquired the same level of, if not more advanced, skills by the time he starts K1.
Even if he has not, by the time the child has started Primary One, this difference should be almost evened out. After all, kids would have time in the Kindergarten years to acquire the necessary skills and if they struggle, isn't it the parents' responsibilities (as much as the teachers') to give them all the help needed to ensure they achieve the minimum standard of competencies?
To cite 'late bloomers' and 'year-end babies' as reasons for poor academic performance at PSLE is so lame. If at age 12, the child can't understand the importance of doing well at the PSLE examinations, and is not putting in sufficient efforts to ensure reasonable results, then perhaps something is wrong with the upbringing of the child.
Let's say our child may not truly appreciate the full impact that a less-than-desirable PSLE performance may have on their academic career, and there are 12-year-old who aren't mature enough to think so far ahead. But if we, as parents, have instilled good learning habits, discipline and work ethics in them, these children will still be putting in their best effort.
They may not turn out the best results we expect at this stage, but if they have tried their best, shouldn't it be good enough for now?
If they are truly late bloomers (which by Wikipedia definition is one whose talents and capabilities are slow to develop and show), they will catch up later even if they ended up in a not-too-ideal Secondary school. Especially if we have already instilled in them the positive attitudes and equip them with the essential life skills.
I am not going to hide my disdain for those lazy teenagers who need to be scolded or threatened by their parents before they put in any time to revise for their GCE 'O' Levels. They would much rather hang out with friends or play computer games than revise their work because the latter is not as fun. Does it matter to them that they may fail, hence not qualifying for further studies? Have they considered that they may have to join the workforce at 16 and earn meagre sums? Most probably not. Judging from the cases that I know personally, these teens also do not understand the value of money.
If these unmotivated teens were to flunk their examinations, can the parents complain that it is because our education system did not cater to their late bloomers? Whether it is at age 12, 16 or 18, there will always be unmotivated students.
To motivate the children to do well academically has a lot to do with teaching them the right values. Instead of passing the bucket and pointing fingers at the teachers for failing to engage our kids with interesting lessons or motivate our children enough to want to learn, or slamming the public education system for not considering the needs of our late-bloomers, parents should realize that the first and rightful place to teach values to kids is home. It all starts from the home environment.
4 comments:
Hi Shirley, excellent post indeed! *clap clap* Like you, I agree that there is no such thing as late bloomers, and even if there is, we should try to encourage a child as much as possible, and not attempt to provide any excuse for them. This is not the types of values we wish to inculcate in them. I myself am a year end baby, and had no problems academically when I was younger. Hence, when I gave birth to my little one who is a December baby, most people (including her N2 teachers!) tell me to take things easy with her because she is almost a year younger than the rest of the N2 kids, but I used the same standards of learning on her, believing that a right education and environment would nurture her, putting her on equitable basis with her peers (even the January babies). And true enough, early this year, she was able to spell some 3-letter words on her own, whereas some of her peers born in January still could not do it. It is a lot of hard work on the part of parents, but well worth it for sure :) Great that you penned these thoughts down!
Thanks Linette for sharing your personal experiences and thoughts too.
Both my boys can be considered as "almost" year-end babies too. But actually I didn't push them harder to "catch up" with those born earlier in the year, especially when they were younger, as I believe that when a child is under 4 yrs old, a few months' difference in dates of birth can be a factor in developmental differences. So there is no point comparing their abilities to those January babies.
But I believe in helping them attain their best at any one point, and I like to think that I have been fairly consistent in this way since they were tots.
So by the time the kids are in K2, there should be no significant differences between them and Jan babies.
It is irritating when people who are lucky enough to have smart children like to say this. You will not understand until you have a child who needs more time to catch up. At primary school, especially primary 1, 7 or 6 is a big difference. It's more than 10% difference. There will always be children born later who can cope as well but these are anecdotal. If you take the population as a whole, you will find that most of the time, January children do better than year-end children. Statistics don't lie. So get off your smug high horse and stop always patting yourself on the back. It's also presumptious to think that all those who don't do well in PSLE must be because they're lazy. You are so ignorant.
Anon, I was going to delete your rude and presumptuous comment at first, but decided that people like you need to be put in your rightful place!
First of all, if you think that families with smart children are just plain lucky, that is where you are SO wrong and ignorant! Luck has nothing to do with it. It is all about nurturing and understanding your child's strengths and weakenesses and helping them along. Perhaps because you believe in luck, AND your lack of luck, which is why your child is not performing well enough. You will do yourself and your child a favour if you stop believing that other people have better luck than you.
Secondly, read the post AGAIN properly if you can't understand it. The lazy ones who didn't do well in school are those whom I personally know and they are lazy. These are the ones that I talked about. Nothing to be presumptuous about. Again, don't comment if you have difficulty understanding English.
Thirdly, even if there is a 10% difference in results between those born in Jan and year-end kids, so what? It is only 10% difference?!
My boys are year-end babies and if they were to perform 10% worse than their peers in any exams in future and I know that they have tried their best, I would just say that they have tried their best and this is GOOD ENOUGH!
I still won't not go around lamenting that 'oh they are late bloomers and MOE should not penalize my late bloomers'
It is nothing to do with patting myself on my back, but all about not giving excuses to poor performance, like what another reader has rightly commented. Period.
Fourthly,statistics don't lie? Oh really? You are the ignorant one here AGAIN! First, show me the statistics that Jan born babies do better in school in PSLE and beyond! Second, go and read up on how statistics have been manipulated in umpteen times by statisticians for various objectives. If you still take statistics as it is, you obviously need to be more educated yourself.
And lastly, this is my personal blog. I write what I like and if you don't like what you read, don't waste your time reading. Shouldn't you be spending the precious time coaching your late bloomers or work on the upbringing and instilling of values? Or better still, go lobby more for MOE to change their policies.
But wait, if you don't even have the courage nor courtesy to comment with your name in the first place, you probably are not a good role model anyway.
P/S: unless you return with some proper facts, especially on the statistics and some respect, I won't waste another minute reading your further comments.
Post a Comment